Search This Blog

Monday, January 29, 2018

In 1998 radical American Leftist intellectual, Noam Chomsky made the telling observation
that:

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit
the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that
spectrum....”

Another name for this phenomenon is ‘Convergence
Politics’.

In Australia there is ‘Convergence’ on the economy, with debates focusing on relatively minor differences ; but where
heated debate on the so-called ‘Culture Wars’ fills the vacuum.

Every day in the mass media we are subjected to the positions of ostensibly “Centre
Right” and “Centre Left” political parties.But in reality the ‘relative centre’ has shifted way-right on the
economy since the 1970s. And dissent
against that orthodoxy is minimal. Where it occurs it is modest.

The Hawke-Keating years saw convergence on ‘economic neo-liberalism’ in Australia – and there has been no significant
turning back since.Kevin Rudd attempted
a Mining Super Profits Tax but was quickly ‘disciplined’ by the mining
industry, and removed in short order with a ‘palace coup’.For a time Sam Dastyari focused attention on
corporate tax evasion.But while
corporate tax evasion arguably costs the Australian people tens of billions
annually, in reality Dastyari’s proposals were minimal. (in the hundreds of
millions)Julia Gillard delivered a
National Disability Insurance Scheme, but it was argued that ‘savings’ had to be made elsewhere to compensate;
thelogic of which was thereafter
embraced more enthusiastically by the Liberals.

Under Bill Shorten Labor has committed to reforming
Superannuation Tax Concessions, making some cuts in the applicability of
Negative Gearing, and reforming Capital Gains Tax Concessions. ‘The Guardian’
argued in 2016 that these measures would save $100
billion over ten years. This is substantial in the relative scheme of
things ; but less impressive when you consider inflation.Perhaps after that is factored in we’re
talking about around 0.5% of GDP in a $1.6 trillion economy.

Shorten received a lot of Kudos from the Australian
liberal left (for instance Fairfax journalists) for these ‘bold’ policies. But
the fact these measures are considered so remarkable only underscores the
reality of ‘Convergence Politics’ in Australia on the economy.

Meanwhile vigorous debate rages in the context of ‘The Culture Wars’. The Equal
Marriage debate has been won.But at a
cost whereby Australia’s economic and cultural Right-wing are attempting to
claim substantial Christian strata as a ‘base’.(But this should not be taken for granted; it should be fought ;
socially-conservative should not necessarily mean economically-conservativeor economically-Liberal ; nor should
‘Christian’ necessarily mean ‘socially conservative’)

And now debate turns to the date for ‘Australia
Day’ and the content of the National Curriculum – or at least how it is applied
in Victoria.

These debates are truly important. They are more than ‘distractions’.

After the ‘Australia Day debate’ the next logical step is for a Treaty with
indigenous peoples.And Conservative
attempts to promote a National Curriculum which mixes Ideological Liberalism
with uncritical nationalism – are deeply concerning.But Labor’s position on the National
Curriculum is also arguably too-conservative.Arguably the National Curriculum should promote‘active, informed and critical
citizenship.’Which means deep and
inclusive pluralism when it comes to informing students of the interests,
social movements and ideological perspectives that have comprised Australian
society. Here I am thinking along the lines of ‘post-Marxist’, Chantal Mouffe’s
‘radical pluralism’ , or ‘Agonistic Democracy’ ; and how those principles might
be reflected in curricula.

Nonetheless these debates are more
‘tolerable’ for capitalists and the wealthy than debates which question
neo-liberalism, labour market deregulation (but no right to strike),and ‘small government’.(Though perhaps the debate on Education is less
‘tolerable’, here, than the Equal Marriage debate.There is the potential to detract from narrow
emphasis on ‘labour market demands’ ; and to encourage critical thinking and active
citizenship which may meaningfully strengthen our democracy).

The debates are substantial ; are not ‘merely distractions’ ; but the way
public debate is presented these debates do constantly and over-the-long-term deflect
attention away from a substantial, more wide-ranging debate on the economy, and
especially economic power and inequality.

Debates are also framed in such a way as to divide Labor’s traditional
constituencies ; with the decline of class as a central ‘reference point’, and
erroneous assumptions of ‘essential working class conservatism’ and
‘aspirational’ mentality’. ‘Political correctness’ is also regularly beaten-up
in order to weaken Labor’s base via attrition.In response Labor needs policies and language which promote social
solidarity.

But anything which truly questions ‘Convergence’ is
summarily dismissed as ‘Hard Left’.Outgoing Labor President Mark Butler has made welcome demands for
internal democratisation . But his description of British Labour’s Jeremy
Corbyn as ‘Hard Left’ is regrettable. Corbyn is trending towards something more
‘traditionally social-democratic’ ; and has plans for railroad
and utility re-nationalisation that would ‘set a
precedent’ whereby decades of privatisation are not necessarily permanent.The policies are progressive, but not radical
; and Butler’s dismissal of Corbyn shows that ‘Convergence thinking’ still has
a strong grip even within the ALP Left.
What would a ‘break’ from Convergence Politics look like?The author of this article has been working
on an updated (unofficial) “Model
Platform” for Labor (currently in draft form) which is
suggestive of a genuine reform footing for the ALP.As a democratic socialist my long-term aim is
the eventual surpassing of capitalism with a truly fair, rational and
democratic economy. But even Marx understood that the transition from feudalism
to capitalism took centuries. (though Marx did think socialist revolution a nearer
prospect at the time)And now there is
the likely prospect ‘a clear and genuine break’ will not occur in our
lifetimes. Though the prospect of
further crises and economic convulsions is nonetheless real.Perhaps ‘barbarism’ is the more-likely
prospect ; though we have to fight.

On the other hand, many on today’s Left still look
to the Nordics for inspiration.The
Nordic model may not have ‘abolished’ capitalism ; but what some see as ‘the
end goal’ is not everything. Billions of people will live in the context of
historic compromises we fight for over the decades to come.Their security, opportunities and happiness
truly mean something with or without the over-arching capitalist context.Yet sadly most in the Labor Party have not
supported policies which meaningfully progress Australia towards something
‘Nordic-inspired’.

The ‘ALP Model Platform’(otherwise ‘For
an Equal and Democratic Australia’) , suggests a short to medium term
orientation, which breaks with ‘convergence thinking’, and has the meaningful
aim of reaching the OECD average Tax to GDP ratio over as long as three terms
of Labor Government.That means raising progressive
tax by $80 billion/year in today’s terms, or 5% of GDP.(keep in mind the economy is worth over $1.6
Trillion) It falls far short of the Nordics.
(perhaps over $300 billion/year would be necessary) But it is suggestive of meaningful
and substantial progress. (no more ‘one step forward, two steps back’ ;
‘the forward march of labour re-commences’)

What this means is substantial progressive
restructure of Australia’s tax mix ; funding big improvements to the social
wage, welfare, public provision of infrastructure. It also means National Aged Care Insurance ; slashing
hospital and public dental waiting lists ; industrial rights and liberties
including a ‘re-regulation’ of the lower end of the labour market which
delivers to the working poor ; strategies to improve life expectancy for
indigenous Australians and the mentally ill ; progress towards free higher
education ; support for mutuals and co-operative enterprise – with strategic
public ‘co-investments’ which help these maintain the scale necessary to remain
competitive ; an end to insufficient and ‘punitive’ welfare ; a big investment
in public housing ; and much more.These
are central to the ‘ALP Model Platform’: a document intended to influence
debate leading up to Labor’s National Conference this year in July 2018.

Labor has long been a ‘broad church’ with its own
‘internal pluralism’, and that is not likely to change.But Labor should straddle the political
ground across ‘traditional’ social democracy to democratic socialism ; and
arguably there is also a place for what may be called ‘classical’ social
democrats.(radicals inspired by the
original (largely Marxist) social democratic parties ; and those who followed
in their wake)

Arguably astrong radical-left can also
contribute to the climate of culture and public opinion as well.The Communist Party of Australia never had
serious electoral success.But it was a
cultural and industrial power.Ultimately it broke with Stalinism, also ; and in many ways that legacy
is important and valid.

In the US, Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)
has been registering impressive gains in membership. They intervene within the
Democratic Party ; but at the same time they are more broadly-based. They
demonstrate how a Left movement can be a cultural, political and electoral
force ; but not be restricted to a single electoral strategy.DSA includes radical perspectives, but are
not narrowly Leninst.Perhaps a similar
strategy could also ‘bear fruit’ in Australia ; with a strong challenge against
‘Convergence’ – which all progressives should agree has to end.

The ‘ALP Model Platform' Supporters’ Page can be found here: (PLS Join!)

Monday, January 15, 2018

It’s been
20 years since the government brought in the Aged Care Act 1997 to deliver a
new model of care for older Australians who could no longer live at home and
required assistance with daily tasks. The act aimed to facilitate choice and
independence for the elderly, and direct services to those with the greatest
needs.

But the
legislative change also coincided with an era of advanced ageing and more
complex needs in our elderly.

People
who had previously entered low-level residential aged care (then called
hostels), are now cared for in the community. Once they enter aged care,
they’re older and sicker than before, and have more complex needs. Since 2008,
the number of older Australians admitted to a residential aged care facility
has remained steady, but the proportion of people with high-care needs has
progressively increased.

Older and
sicker Australians

Currently,
around half of people living in aged care have dementia, depression, or another
mental health or behavioural condition. The proportion of older people
requiring high care for complex needs, which includes assistance with all
activities of daily living such as eating and bathing, has quadrupled from 13%
in 2009 to 61% in 2016.

When the
act was introduced, more emphasis was placed on supporting older people to
remain at home for as long as possible. Now, the transition to permanent care
only occurs once all options have been exhausted. The needs of the elderly
population often outgrow the available community aged care support. This then
requires an admission into one of Australia’s 283,000 (subsidised) residential
aged care beds. As a result, our aged care facilities are increasingly
functioning as hospices for the frail elderly with complex care needs.

The main
flaw of the act was to repeal the legal requirement for all aged-care
facilities to provide 24-hour registered nursing care to assess and manage
resident’s changing clinical needs, wounds and unrelieved pain. So residents
have minimal access to this. Too few have access to the necessary help from a
geriatric medicine specialist (doctor), psychologist or social worker. And
their families have minimal access to psychological and social support, and
bereavement follow-up.

Why was
the act introduced?

The 1997 act replaced two outdated and confusing 1950s laws to create a single
statutory framework for Australian aged care services. It detailed the
responsibilities of aged-care operators in relation to quality and compliance.
It also empowered the relevant minister to set out principles covering matters
such as quality of care, accountability and user rights.

The
introduction of the act fuelled a much-needed capital works program funded by
low interest bonds from older people entering residential aged care. This was
meant to make aged care facilities more home-like, while also meeting care
needs.

A major
achievement of the act has been the amalgamation of hostels (social care
accommodation for older people) and nursing homes (frail aged accommodation
with 24-hour nursing care) into a single, user-pays regulated system. Now,
people live in one institution, but are classified as having either low-care or
high-care needs.

This was
to provide older people with an opportunity to “age in place”. So, to have a
seamless transition into higher-level care as lower-level physical care needs
intensified; and to ensure people living in an aged care facility received all
of their care needs in one location.

Major
pitfalls of the act

The act’s
repeal of the legal requirement for 24-hour nursing care reflected the social
model of care underpinning the legislation. The idealistic yet impractical
philosophy took the focus away from nursing and medical care. So now, the bulk
of personal care is provided by a pool of untrained and unregulated aged-care
workers supervised by a very small number of registered nurses.

Registered
nurses employed in aged care are central to assessing, planning, monitoring and
delivering complex care to older people living in these facilities. But there
are too few registered nurses (and they are often managing the facility) so
they have limited capacity to ensure the older person’s function, comfort and
dignity is optimised, their mobility maintained and dependence minimised.

These
skilled nurses also have few opportunities to ensure the resident’s family
members receive the appropriate level of psycho-social and spiritual support
they often need. Primarily because they’re dependent on the unskilled workers
alerting them to changes in the resident’s condition or the families concerns.

Aged care
facilities lack the clinical infrastructure of our hospitals. So, if a
registered nurse is not on duty, there are few people the unskilled care
workers can call for timely clinical review.

If the GP
can’t be contacted and the registered nurse is not on duty, an ambulance will
be called and the frail older person will be transferred to hospital for
assessment.

What
needs to happen

Numerous
inquiries have highlighted the need for a skilled aged-care workforce to ensure
older Australians have access to the level and quality of health care they
deserve. These health care gaps persist largely because the act’s principles,
while possessing the status of law, are not subject to the same parliamentary
control and public accountability.

A new
nursing skill mix model is urgently required in aged care to address the level
of unmet health care needs. At a minimum, the act should be amended to
stipulate appropriate staffing requirements for the delivery of direct clinical
care, including the presence of at least one registered nurse at all times. As
part of the skill mix, a higher ratio of registered nurses and enrolled nurses
supported by a team of care workers is required.

The
availability of a nurse practitioner, with advanced training and prescribing
rights, and a geriatrician to all aged care facilities would do much to improve
timely access to medical care. It’s also likely the addition of this tier of
health professionals into aged care would reduce the need for unnecessary
emergency department presentations. These are often distressing for the
resident and their family, as well as being costly to the system.

Unfortunately,
the act fails our most vulnerable members of society and their families by not
providing them with the skilled nursing, medical and allied health care they
require in their last year, weeks or days of life.

Afterward (by Dr Tristan Ewins, blog publisher)

Sharyn Ladiges has described the evolution of the Aged Care sector very well, and has made a compelling case for "a new nursing skill mix model" which would include a registered nurse on site at all times. This has long been a core demand of Aged Care workers, nurses, and families. Also broader 'staff to resident' ratios are necessary to ensure all residents in high intensity care receive the care they need ; including regular turning to prevent bed sores and so on.

Arguably, though, we could do with a National Aged Care Insurance Scheme model involving relatively comparable resources as the National Disability Insurance Scheme - but hopefully learning from any problems which have been experienced in the implementation of that model. This would provide comprehensive services for all in need of any kind of aged care: ageing in place ; low intensity residential care ; high intensity residential care...

Firstlywe need to get rid of user pays: for both high intensity and low intensity Aged Care (and 'ageing in place') ; and fund fully from progressive taxation. User pays mechanisms have often been onerous ; have forced the sale of family homes ; have weighed relatively heavily on some working class households. Aged Australians from all kinds of backgrounds should have access to the same very high quality Aged Care services as one another ; where no-one experiences relatively inferior quality care on account of socio-economic background.

Secondly we need to ensure *happiness* and mental health as well as physical health. This means ensuring social and intellectual engagement for people of a variety of backgrounds and interests. It could mean outings ; forums ; access to information technology ; creative and artistic activities ; listening to or even playing music ; mediated discussions ; access to books ; reading and discussing the papers, current affairs, the news ; watching and discussing films, and so on. This needs to be addressed in both low and high intensity care, and for those 'ageing in place'. Perhaps more effort and resources need to be put into addressing loneliness amongst those 'ageing in place' alone as well. High quality food needs to be ensured for all as well ; as does privacy; and access to pleasant surroundings - eg: gardens ; where possible sunshine ; and so on.

Finally , we need to be taking a close look at the 'for profit' part of the residential aged care sector. Private providers should not be gouging residents and families ; and the sector needs to be thoroughly regulated to prevent 'short-cuts' and so on to reinforce 'bottom lines'. We need more emphasis on the state sector and on 'not for profits' ; and subsidising these to ensure the highest quality care for everyone.

Thanks again to Sharyn Ladiges for her informed overview of the development of the sector and the issues it faces today.

Saturday, December 23, 2017

In the light of
the Australian Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse some people are claiming
a general redundancy of Christianity, or even religion in general. How are we to
respond these claims (some even go so far as to claim religion is
socially-damaging such as to warrant its suppression)? I will argue that there
are philosophical reasons still to take Christianity – and religion more
generally – seriously. The response will mainly be philosophical – except to
express right from the outset my distress at the acts of the abusers, and my
hope for justice and for the reform of the churches.We might begin by
exploring some broad philosophical questions.

It's become 'basically
accepted' on much of the Left that atheism (and philosophical materialism)
represents 'enlightened' opinion. This is the case in sections of the relative
Right and Centre as well. Yet most atheists (most likely philosophical
materialists) have no answer for the questions: 'how to explain free-will'? ;
'how to explain consciousness?' That is: except to claim consciousness and free
will are simply matters of complexity rather than *quality*. And whatever the
source of those - what happens when you die?Assuming there is
not merely some physical 'tipping point' where consciousness arises; how do we
explain phenomena which are transcendent and do not make sense in ...the purely
'mechanical' schema of cause and effect?Personally I am
strongly influenced by Marxism (depending where you draw the line I might even
still think of myself as a Marxist) but I have long harboured misgivings
regarding pure philosophical materialism. Importantly, 'philosophical
materialism' (the notion there is only 'matter' with no spiritual realm and no
'transcendent' properties) is different from 'historical materialism' or
'dialectical materialism' (which trace the place of economic systems and class
struggles in shaping history).Marx's view also
descended from the Young Hegelian critiques of religion as 'self-alienation' (ie
people became 'slaves' to doctrines and 'hypothesised beings' of their own
creation). Insofar as some doctrines are purely-human creations there is weight
to this critique.One philosophical
position, 'Cartesian Dualism', supposes transcendent properties of mind to
explain this. Also in the 19th Century the 'Marburg School' and those
such as Hermann Cohen (Neo-Kantians) considered a marriage of Idealist/Ethical
and Marxist theory. Perhaps that is still of value today.So maybe there is
an after-life for us. Maybe we die - but some part of us lives on in some form.
And if this were so, what kind of existence would there be in this 'afterlife'?
What of 'the reincarnation of the soul', claimed, for instance, by Hindus and
Buddhists? Do we remember past lives? Is there some kind of 'Heaven'? Are there
'unseen dimensions'? Or is the 'afterlife' as brutal as the natural world, which
we have only effectively imposed our wills upon during the relatively brief
period of civilised humanity? Perhaps life is like a veritable 'minefield', and
certain religions (like Christianity) suggest 'a way through'. Finally possibly
there is 'nothingness' for us, or at least a very long rest (perchance to
dream?).

Importantly, Christianity is divided on the question of
'spiritual resurrection' or 'bodily resurrection', 'faith versus works' and so
on. Some Christians might be concerned that I retain doubt about these and other
aspects of the faith. But for me there is an interplay of hope and belief. I
admit my faith is not perfect, but hope is better than hopelessness. There is
still hope for peace of mind and the kind of good and decent life that might
follow from that.And it's not just
the Abrahamic religions which have believed in 'the spiritual' but also a whole
host of pagan religions with very complex associated beliefs. From Sumer and Ur
to Babylon, to Greece and Egypt and Rome. And also consider other (non-Pagan)
religions: Hindus, Buddhists and so on. How is it, for instance, that there are
clear similarities, say, between Jewish and Hindu mysticism? Is it really all
'made up'? Or do commonalities suggest different religions may be attempting to
apprehend the same reality?

If you approach the philosophical issues
seriously it's not as 'cut and dried' as you may think ; no matter how
fashionable atheist (philosophical) materialism has become.Some claim the
redundancy of doctrines reaching back over 2000 years and more. For instance,
imagine "stoning adulterers" in Western societies today! That said many people
have attempted, and are still attempting, to "modernise religion". Consider the
Reformation; the response of the Counter-Reformation: and Christian churches'
grappling with liberalism and the Enlightenment over hundreds of years
now.Largely (with
important exceptions) the response of many Christians has been to liberalise.
Though sadly the doctrine of 'Papal infallibility' arguably detracts from the
ability of Roman Catholicism to respond to and learn from its mistakes (for
instance the sweeping dismissal of socialism in Rerum
Novarum).Maybe one day we
will fully understand why ancient and contemporary religions have believed as
they have. Assuming there is a 'spiritual realm' maybe one day science will
openly apprehend it. The Ancient Greek philosopher Democritus suggested the
existence of atoms thousands of years before it was scientifically proven in the
19th and 20th centuries AD. And today science is arguably
progressing more rapidly than any time in human history.Some argue "what
use believing in what you cannot perceive?" This was certainly Marx's view. He
urged humanity to face the world "with sober senses". And to let go of the
"opium" of religious belief. Which he understood as easing the pain of the
oppressed while detracting from the cause of liberation in the world
(not 'beyond' or 'from' it).But so long as
people don't have definitive answers and are questing after hope you can't blame
them for exploring religions! Some may point to 'Pascal's Wager': that there is
nothing to lose and everything to gain from believing in God. (I like to think
my belief is more than a cold calculation however!) Indeed Marx's position in
this regard also rested on an article of faith: that 'reality' was only as
confirmed by the senses and that, increasingly, there was nothing left which was
'unseen' (especially given the enormous leaps in scientific understanding which
were progressing in the 19th Century ; the century, amongst other
things, of the Industrial Revolution). The progressive accumulation of
scientific discoveries since Marx's time suggests there is still plenty to be
scientifically 'uncovered' even in the 21st
Century.One of the most
significant problems with religions is that cynical people will exploit other
peoples' sincere search for spiritual truth and hope in order to mobilise those
people as a 'power base' in the world. And in a way which was not originally
intended by the founders of various faiths. I think there is something deeply
wrong with that. Arguably this happens with secular ideologies as well - and
pretty much any organised interest or system of beliefs.As a Leftist
Christian I also worry at the possible consolidation of Christian communities as
a political power base by the Conservative Right: which can only be facilitated
further by those escalating voices of intolerance against the faithful (ie
against their liberal right to practice their faith).So religions are
deployed regularly to rationalise bloody conflicts and that has also been the
case for thousands of years.

In response Faiths
have to engage with each other for the sake of peace and co-existence. Those
cynical interests (mentioned earlier) will exploit differences in order to
create conflicts and ultimately wars, which determine spheres of influence and
power in the world. Innocents more often than not 'get caught in the middle'.
They become 'fodder' for the 'power-plays' of cynical
manipulators.But at Christmas I
still believe that the 'true' Christian church lives on in people who find God
and Christ in their own way. Despite the manipulations that go on (wrongly) in
the name of religions.While I have
little to do with worldly churches I still consider myself a Christian. I
believe in the "unseen" as well as the seen. And I refuse the extremes of
'worldly' material acquisition: the pursuit of exponentially-increasing personal
wealth by a small minority under capitalism.Marx understood
that material abundance could lead to a kind of freedom 'in the world'. Freedom
from the need for alienating labour, and hence a recasting of the division of
labour, enabling much fuller personal development and fulfilment (personal
growth through the pursuit of art, philosophy, science and so forth). In other
words "the good and decent life (in the world) for everyone".

That said I
reject the waste, exploitation, repression, inequality and poverty that goes
with capitalism and the subordination of everything to the endless accumulation
of personal material wealth. And I believe there is a basis for this in
Christianity.

And I believe that a critique of capitalism itself might be
derived from scripture.

And yet perhaps "liberation in the world" alone
is not sufficient given the human condition; humanity's striving for hope; and
unanswered questions as to "what next?" What of eternity?

Finally at
Christmas I consider the following from the book of Micah:

"…act justly….,love
mercy and…walk humbly with your God."Peace and best
wishes this Christmas.

This Essay is Dedicated to my Mum, Amy Ewins : I pray we will meet again.

It was first published at the Australian e-journal 'On Line Opinion' ; published by Graham Young

Saturday, November 25, 2017

What follows are another series of Left-inclined 'Letters to the Editor' I have sent to 'The Age' and 'The Herald-Sun' between July and November 2017. Subjects include everything from 'Cultural Marxism' to 'Bracket Creep' and the Australian Welfare System.

PLS feel welcome to discuss.

Only a few of the Letters were Published ; but I'm hoping consideration of the content here will justify the effort put in to writing the material

Capitalism and the Threat of Destitution

David Penberthy writes as if homelessness and destitution have nothing to do
with capitalism. (Activists no help to the homeless, 13/8/17)Unfortunately this is not the reality. Under
capitalism most people do not own significant stakes in businesses
themselves.They have no choice but to
sell their labour power to capitalists in order to survive.In this system average workers can be
‘disciplined’ (kept in line) by the threat of sinking into a class of working
poor.And the working poor in turn are
‘disciplined’ by the threat of destitution ; sinking into an underclass of
destitute and homeless.This is actually
functional for capitalists seeking to depress wages and conditions.The situation is further worsened by
‘punitive welfare’. Benefits are low ; often below that sufficient for
subsistence. (scraping by)Savings must
be exhausted to acquire Newstart. Workers’ bargaining power evaporates under
these circumstances.Also emergency
housing, welfare and so on cost money. But even Labor governments are
continually under pressure to deal harshly with the unemployed ; to cut
spending in order to make room for corporate tax cuts and so on.And attempts to ameliorate the condition of
those affected is branded “class warfare”.

What are Shorten’s
Tax Plans in Reality?

The Herald-Sun is waging a campaign against what it argues
will be an increased tax regime under Bill Shorten. But so far Shorten’s proposals
are in fact too modest. Reform of Trusts will bring in maybe one sixteenth
of one per cent of GDP. (approximately $1 billion a year out of $1.6 trillion)Negative gearing reforms will bring in a
similar amount. Contra the Herald-Sun,
these reforms will tend to bypass low to middle income earners. Apart from this
the Herald-Sun is emphasising Shorten’s resolve not to deliver Turnbull’s $65 billion
corporate tax cut over 10 years.The
problem is that when you cut taxes this way it has to be made up for
somewhere.So corporations get a
windfall – but Medicare might be ransacked for cash. To get a sense of
proportion – it would take perhaps $400
billion in new taxes to bring in enough money to pay for a Swedish-style
welfare state!But if Shorten devoted an
additional 2% of the economy ($32 billion) in a first term to reform of Health,
Aged Care, Education and Social Security – surely thatwould be a reasonable measure from which most
people would benefit.

Bolt’s Double Standards on Liberties

Andrew Bolt (August 24th) argues against what he
says is a ‘totalitarian’ Left.But if
Bolt is to adopt the cause of liberal rights let him do so without
hypocrisy.Let’s see if Bolt is willing
to support rights of speech, association and assembly - without punitive laws,
and without the dispersion, vilification and criminalisation of protest
movements such as that once associated with the “We are the 99 per cent” cause,
occupations against homelessness and so on.Once the consensus on liberal rights breaks down everyone is potentially
at risk.Both Left and Right need to
avoid double standards on liberal rights ; and that includes “celebrities” such
as Andrew Bolt. Meanwhile attempts to shut down councils wanting to change the
date of Australia Day celebrations – suggests a Federal Government which is not
serious about reconciliation with Indigenous Australia.

Refuting Bolt on
Welfare

The Herald-Sun (27/8) editorialises that “Welfare is Not a
Right” and advocates a crackdown against the unemployed especially.But at the same time provides scant room for
the expression of the contrary view: that Australia already has one of the most
punitive and austere unemployment regimes in the developed world.Instead, the Herald-Sun ought argue for the
kind of labour market and industry policy regimes that exist in Denmark.This requires many billions to work ; but the
returns in terms of the creation of more high-wage jobs – pitched to workers’
skill sets – makes it a price worth paying.Meanwhile Newstart could do to be increased by a minimum $1000/year, indexed.Job-seekers who cannot even afford transport,
decent clothes or internet already have little chance of finding work.Newstart provisions (introduced under the
Turnbull Liberals) forcing job-seekers to exhaust much if not all of their
savings before receiving support also need reconsideration. Where’s the
incentive to save when losing your job could cost you everything?

Labor’s
Modest Tax Agenda

Chris Bowen is laughing off claims by Scott
Morrison that Bill Shorten is promoting a ‘socialist’ agenda.In reality,
Bill Shorten is talking about very moderate
tax reforms that so-far will struggle to raise $4 billion a year. Or roughly one quarter of one per cent of GDP.But there's a problem with such suggestions being
“laughable” as well.And that Labor has
come to depend on such claims being laughable. Cert...ainly
Labor are not outwardly democratic socialists. That applies probably to most
Labor MPs 'internally' as well. But the Libs win by default if Labor is too
scared to talk about democratic socialism, redistribution, economic democracy,
social wage and welfare reform, industrial rights, public ownership and so on.
For instance, Labor should be aiming to match the OECD average on tax (roughly
34% of GDP) and associated social expenditure
over several terms. In order to fund reform of education, health, aged care,
infrastructure, welfare and so forth.If
Labor 'wins' on the Liberals' terms then the Liberals win anyway - through
Labor’s internalisation of their economic and social assumptions and values.
Even if Labor achieves government, under those circumstances Labor (and the
people Labor represent) lose.

The Truth about the ‘Luddites’ has Lessons for us Today

Rosemary Tyler (Letters,
10/9) mentions the ‘Luddites’ and their response to the Industrial Revolution,
comparing them to those who resist Clean Energy today.But there are important differences.The Luddites were not just ‘mindless wreckers
of Progress’. They were largely skilled crafts-people who were resisting
‘proletarianisation’ and the de-skilling of their industries.They were forced from their homes ; compelled
to be wage slaves in dangerous factories ; reduced to bare material
subsistence; compelled to suffer 12 hour days and worse.They lost creative control over their labours
and their labour’s products. The capitalism of the Industrial Revolution
created a foundation for economic and scientific progress ; but it often came
at a terrible cost.Today, also, modern
capitalism rests upon the brutal exploitation of ‘peripheral’ economies such as
in Bangladesh ; but also often the exploitation of working poor within the
‘first world’ itself.Privatisation is
arguably the main driver of the current energy-affordability crisis ; But if
re-socialisation is not considered an option (it should be!), other measures
must be taken to ‘immunise’ low income workers and pensioners during the
transition to renewables and beyond.

Turnbull ‘Asleep at
the Wheel’ on Energy

David Ingliss (Letters, 25/9) writes that the “electricity
crisis” is the result of “rabid Green ideology”. Let’s get some things
straight, though.The current
Conservative Government has had years to prepare for the closure of coal-fired
plants such as Hazelwood. It’s Turnbull who has been “asleep at the wheel”.
Also global warming is not an “Ideology” ; it’s a scientifically-verified
environmental crisis and not necessarily to do with political values. Hence our
response SHOULD be bipartisan. Further, if energy had not already been
privatised the decision on what to do with the old energy infrastructure (and
when) would have been the choice of governments.Instead it’s out of our hands. If we had kept
the old SECV which Ingliss refers to in public ownership arguably energy would
be cheaper, and battlers would receive cross-subsidies.Instead privatised or corporatized energy
production and distribution – combined with shrinking economies of scale (as
those who can afford to switch to micro-renewables) – means‘battlers’ are left with a spiralling cost of
living.

Privatisation and Tax
Cuts a ‘Two Edged Sword’ at Best

The Herald-Sun (27/9) proclaims the headline “Budget Repair: Nation $4.4
billion better off”.And Scott Morrison
has been boasting the Coalition Governments ‘success’ in bringing government
spending down to 25% of GDP.But do
lower levels of government expenditure on services, infrastructure, and social
security really improve our ‘national well-being’?By
contrast government spending in Sweden is at approximately 52% of GDP.(A $400 billion difference if translated proportionately
to the Australian context)The
difference is that in this country we have User Pays in everything from Aged
Care to Higher Education – which hits those on lower incomes especially hard.While the Conservatives provide ‘corporate
welfare’ with tax cuts valued at about $60 billion over a decade, we treat the
unemployed like criminals and allow barely enough (or not enough) for them to
subsist and effective search for work.We neglect state education by comparison ; and we are forced to opt for
private provision of infrastructure – which ends up costing consumers AND
business more in the end.

Coal Seam Gas a Risk

The Herald-Sun (27/9)editorialises “Drop ideology and drill” : directing its attention
squarely at Victorian Labor Premier Daniel Andrews.But Coal Seam Gas drilling has extreme risks
– such as water contamination and contamination of land.These risks have nothing to do with
“ideology” ; and neither does the need to reduce carbon emissions in the face
of a virtual scientific consensus on global warming. Also energy plants like
Hazelwood have shut down – increasing the risks of an energy shortage -
something governments were left with no control over as a consequence of past
privatisations.Hazelwood had to close
sooner or later : but under public ownership could have continued until the
State was ready for the transition.Finally, Australia has ample reserves of gas without resort to coal seam
gas (fracking) but the Conservative Government has not properly regulated the
industry ; meaning this gas could be exported while at home we experience
black-outs. Knowing all this it is Malcolm Turnbull who has been “asleep at the
wheel on energy policy” for years ; and now is interested in blame shifting.

The Truth about ‘Cultural
Marxism’

In responseto Dr
Andrew P.Retsas (3/10/17) : while it’s true that Marx has nothing to do with
many modern discourses on sexuality, some interpretations (eg: from Engels on
‘The Origin of Family, Private Property and the State) emphasise the potential
of communal social solidarity and organisation compared with dependence on the
monogamous nuclear family.But the
reality is that the vast majority of Marx’s work is to do with the struggles of
workers to overcome exploitation and oppressive working conditions ; and enjoy
opportunities for personal growth through engagement with philosophy, science,
art, music and so on.Critiques of
‘cultural Marxism’ ignore this, and try and use Marx as a ‘bogey’. Marx wants
workers’ freed from the oppressive conditions of existence and labour – which
in certain ways still prevail today.Some seeing themselves in the Marxist tradition (eg: some from the
‘Frankfurt School’) lost faith in the working class, so instead looked to
racial and sexual minorities, students and women. (for instance Herbert Marcuse
in ‘One Dimensional Man’ (1964) But the Heart of the original Marxism is still
the self-liberation of working people ; and “From each according to ability, to
each according to need” as a doctrine of liberation, human solidarity and
justice.

Education must Support Democracy

Anthony Gilchrist complains that “the socialist left
has…infiltrated the education system” (Herald-Sun, 12/10) . A few points in
response.Firstly, education should
support democracy.That ought mean
political literacy and support for active citizenship. That does not mean
‘indoctrinating’ with one doctrine or another ; but preparing students to make
their own free decisions in a democracy in keeping with their interests and
their adopted value systems.Socialism
has a place here, as do liberalism and conservatism.A strong democracy means pluralism (ie: real
choices) and not just ‘convergence politics’.What Gilchrist calls “victim” politics might simply be citizens speaking
up for their rights and interests in a democracy.If we never questioned injustices, indigenous
Australians and women would never have gained the vote.And workers would never have achieved the 8
hour day.

Stop Vilifying
Vulnerable People on Welfare

The Herald-Sun (23/10 ‘Trillion Dollar Handout’) is developing
a pattern of effectively vilifying vulnerable people in the context of attacks
on Australia’s already threadbare welfare system.In reality the lion’s share of the welfare
system is taken by the Aged Pension. (which funnily enough the Herald-Sun
rarely talks about) Meanwhile for the vast majority unemployment benefits, disability
payments and so on are ‘social insurance’ which ALL of us pay for via our
taxes. Instead of vilifying the vulnerable we need an industry policy which
actually facilitates the creation of decent jobs.(as opposed to driving the car industry out
of the country as the Coalition Government has done) And given activity tests
already exist for Newstart there is no excuse not to raise the payment
significantly: in part to support people as they search for work ; during which
they need access to decent clothes, transport, internet access and so on.Further, if the Herald-Sun wants to break the
‘dependency cycle’ and ‘poverty cycle’ it should agree to greater support for
sole parents and low-income families ; and provide greater scope for Disability
Pensioners to escape poverty traps by engaging in flexible work without losing
a very significant part of their payments via means tests.When those with a serious mental illness are
dying on average 25 years younger than other Australians they are not ‘having
us on’ or ‘rorting the system’.See:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-09/schizophrenia-lowers-life-expectancy-by-25-years/4680580

All the Usual Complaints
from the Right on Socialism

Tom Elliot (27/10)makes all the usual complaints about socialism that you hear from the
Right. But what is socialism really meant to be? I wrote my PhD on this topic
so I have a clue.The totally-reasonable
principle underpinning Marx’s philosophy was ‘from each according to ability,
to each according to need’.What is more
Marx believed in achieving abundance and recasting the division of labour so every individual had the opportunity to
engage in science, art, philosophy, popular culture and so on.Everyone has the right to personal growth and
fulfilment. This – and Marx’s passion for extending democracy across the
political and into the economy – is what distinguishes him so clearly from
those who abused his name ; using it to justify totalitarian regimes.Countries – such as Sweden and Denmark – who
have advanced socialist principles to some extent – have also enjoyed
prosperity, equality, full employment and happiness.We need a genuine pluralism in this country
where democratic socialism is part of the debate.

More on ‘Cultural Marxism’

Chris Zappone (The Age, 13/11) is right to be critical of the widespread
condemnation of ‘cultural Marxism’ by people who don’t really even know what
Marxism is.In fact many Marxists were extremely
concerned about ‘the cultural turn’ from the 1970s onwards ; with the embrace
of ‘identity politics’ and the abandonment of themes of class struggle,
economic justice and of the promotion of a democratic socialist economy. On the
other hand the intellectual movement began by Adorno, Horkheimer and others was
real, and is still real.But it is very
diverse ; and attempts to brand it as some ‘homogenous’ entity comprise
something of a moral panic.Adorno and
Horkheimer especially were despairing of the prospects for socialism in an era
of totalitarianism ; but they also critiqued popular culture in the West as a
medium of social control.Later critical
theorists like Jurgen Habermas were more hopeful ; and Habermas promoted a
theory of ‘communicative action’ which supposed a progressive consensus may be
possible through dialogue. Contrary to right-wing assumptions about ‘critical
theory’ Habermas was decidedly within the Enlightenment tradition.

Kevin Donnelly is
Wrong on the English Curriculum

Kevin Donnelly (HS, 16/11) again takes the English curriculum
to task, accusing it once more of left-wing bias. But the modern English curriculum is about
more than spelling and grammar. It is about communication life skills which
empower students, including the critical analysis of texts.This need not involve a bias towards the Left
or Right.It is about comprehending and
criticising the assumptions beneath texts of both a Left or Right-wing
inclination ; and also those which don’t fit within that framework.The
modern English curriculum is also about encouraging students to develop and
express opinions. Again, this need not involve a prejudice towards the Left or
the Right.But it does empower students
to make informed commitments on social issues , and to express their associated
beliefs effectively. There are some Conservatives (but not all I’d argue) who feel
threatened by this.

Tax Cuts, Corporate Welfare and Bracket
Creep

The Herald-Sun (20/11) editorialises in favour of tax cuts
to compensate for bracket creep. A few points in response.Bracket creep tends to flatten the income
tax system over time ; to make it less progressive.But tax cuts emphasising the upper end can
also exacerbate this.The most equitable
way of dealing with bracket creep is to INDEX the lower thresholds to ensure
those on lower and middle incomes don’t end up paying proportionately
more.But progressively-sourced increases
in tax should not be ruled out.After
all, tax is necessary to pay for Medicare, schooling, roads and so on ; and a
National Aged Care Insurance Scheme could be funded via progressive tax ;
providing for the health, happiness and dignity of older Australians.Certainly sweeping Company Tax cuts amount to
‘corporate welfare’ ; where corporations fail to contribute fairly to the
infrastructure and services they benefit from ; and hence everyday taxpayers
are made to ‘pick up the tab’.

Thursday, November 16, 2017

nb: re: the above ; To be accurate the are many interpretations of feminism just as there are many interpretations of socialism ; But I would like to think a feminism which sees equality and mutual respect as its aim will prevail ; I don't intend to write about gender all the time ; But I've been thinking on these issues for a while and would appreciate some respectful discussion

Dr Tristan Ewins

If feminism was defined today as the pursuit of equality in
the home, in public life, in sport, in popular culture, and in the labour
market then personally I would undoubtedly support feminism. (and in so far as this is true, I DO support
feminism) In addition to that I would agree that going back millennia most
societies have involved an exploitative mode of production (currently it is
manifest with capitalism) ; but that nested within this (or maybe intersecting
with that) there was also a regime of patriarchy. Where women were seen as ‘the
second sex’ ; treated at times as property ; restricted in their aspirations ;
socialised to be ‘submissive’,and more
recently ‘disciplined’ under capitalism by the separation of the labour market
from unpaid domestic labour ; and with the exploitation of that domestic
labour.(ie: as part of the sexual
division of labour) I would also agree that men benefited from that gender
regime at various levels.

Arguably we’re in the midst of a feminist revolution across the ‘Western’
world. This is reflected in popular culture with a plethora of strong women
characters in everything from Star Wars to DC Comics inspired TV series. The ‘Male Gaze’ is also increasingly
challenged with the representation of women’s perspectives. Affirmative action
is challenging male ascendancy in public life – with systems of quotas and
growing acceptance of women in high office.Also there is growing popular impatience with the failure of
Conservative parties to ‘come into the 21st century’ with regard the
promotion of talented women.In
Australia women are making inroads into sports traditionally seen as male
dominated. Australian Rules, Rugby, Soccer, Cricket and so on.Corporate Australia is not ‘catching up’ ;
but in any case we should be more interested with how ordinary women and men
lead their lives than with the ambitions of ‘the one per cent’ – regardless of
whether we are talking of women or men.

With regard this ‘forward march’ I am overwhelmingly sympathetic.But as with most revolutions there are
sometimes elements which take things too far.The goal of liberation sometimes gets mixed up with desire for revenge,
or to turn the old arrangements on their head.Or just to gain an advantage.

What do I mean specifically?I’ll provide a number of examples , and hope
readers will bear with me.

Firstly ; sometimes analytical concepts are applied
inappropriately to silence political rivals.The term ‘man-splaining’ has been widely popularised, and refers to the
tendency amongst some men to ‘condescend’ to women on account of their
gender.This is a genuine problem. But the term can also be misdirected so that in any debate a
man disagreeing with a woman might be labelled in this way ; and not merely
silenced, but judged harshly at a moral level as well. And what if on a specific occasion a man is
well-informed in that context? The consequence is sometimes men becoming relatively
passive in the face of the threat of moral judgement and the stigma that goes
with it.This is not a ‘general problem
with feminism’.It is just to say there
is the temptation for some to misuse such concepts for short-term or tactical advantage.Although there are probably some (by no
means all) feminists who would like to reconstruct masculinity in a way which
is subordinate ; for those concerned with
equality there is still the imperative of rolling back the institutions of
‘structural’ economic and cultural gender disadvantage. This is still overwhelmingly a question of
women’s liberation from patriarchy. But also there is a concern that long-term we
not replace the tyranny of patriarchy with a different kind of tyranny.Where men know they cannot get away with
habitually speaking over women, it is good to have that consideration ; But that must
translate as mutual consideration.

Also there is sometimes a blurring of the lines as to what comprises abuse or
harassment. Increasingly the act of a man looking at a woman where that
attention is unwanted is endowed with the gravity of sexual harassment.In response, most people – men or women –
could probably agree that they have received unwanted sexual attention.Indeed ‘no means no’ ; and persistently
staring at a person can cause discomfort.But ‘where to draw the line?’ ; and ‘what are the power relations’
underscoring this problem?Men and women
are generally attracted to one another, or same-sex-attracted. This is a
natural given.And often they express
this (visual) attraction by looking at each other. Here it is good to have such emotional
intelligence to pick up on visual cues (like body language) ; and to try and
not cause discomfort.But this issue
intersects with questions of body image, appearance and self-confidence.Of course many of us enjoy the attention of
those we also find attractive ; but tend to discourage attention from those we
do not find attractive.So all this has
consequences for those facing social disadvantagebecause of dominant perceptions of ‘beauty’
and ‘attractiveness’ ; where some people may feel relaxed expressing sexual
attraction ; but others may retreat into themselves ; and avoid demonstrating
attraction for others.It is compounded
by unreal body image expectations ; and it is contestable that increasingly
expectations for men are the most
unrealistic. (mesomorphic, muscular, athletic,
‘six pack’ and so on)The question is:
How do we provide the right social cues without emotionally crushing a person
who is attracted to us ; but who we are not attracted to in return?Here
we must again be careful not to have double standards.‘Power’ can be subtle ; and it is not just a
‘uni-directional’ question of male dominance and privilege.Finally, to have such a broad definition of
sexual harassment probably distracts from the gravity of more serious harassment. Hence when measuring the prevalence of that kind of behaviour we need
a transparent methodology.

Continuing ; while Affirmative Action is justified in order
to challenge ‘ground in exclusion of women’ in public life, what should be
contested is the specific model of affirmative action ,and how far it seeks to go. If affirmative
action seeks a ‘minimum 50 per cent’ women’s representation that could turn
into a fixed structural advantage. To be fair, therefore, a ‘40/40/20’ model is
probably more realistically accommodating.Also perhaps it makes more sense to reserve specific seats for women so
as to reach the 40/40/20 target.This is
better than to have Affirmative Action leading to a situation where a person
gaining a majority does not get the job ; and therefore where voters in
democratic organisations do not get the policies
which they voted for.Here democracy
should be the ascendant regime. But there is even the danger of affirmative
action sometimes being manipulated so as to ‘bypass’ the principle of modern democracy
– where one person equals one vote.Reserved seats forwomen would over-come this problem while also promoting equality
in public life.

It is also interesting to observe that gender tends to be privileged, here,
over, say, disability, body type, social class, cultural identity and so on.As the feminist revolution consolidates there
is the question of whether it will satisfy itself with women’s liberation. Or
will it only be satisfied with turning patriarchy on its head? To expand: Class relations can (at least
theoretically) be abolished under a regime of mutual liberation. Theoretically capitalists can cease to be AS
CAPITALISTS ; that is following some theoretical expropriation ; with the
abolition of the social relation of capital to labour.The social relation can be undone without
destroying the people concerned as human beings.But ‘men are men’ (biologically AND according
to social-construction) , and any settlement needs to take account of that. We can get rid of patriarchal social relations
but the question of men’s social position and the construction of 'masculinity' will remain. Equality, mutual consideration, mutual respect
– needs to be the aim.

Also, will the feminist revolution be the prelude to a much
broader liberation struggle? Or will its proponents be satisfied once they have
achieved their own distinct ends?The
allies of women’s liberation should be agitating at this point to broaden the
struggle on a multitude of fronts.The
privilege, dominance and power of the capitalist class is ‘the hardest nut to
crack’ ; but must be prioritised ; not left in ‘the too-hard basket’.

In some areas
there is even arising the scenario of systemic male disadvantage. For instance
when it comes to participation levels of men in higher education, and the
performance of boys in secondary education. Were it the other way around there
would be no patience for this.But instead
there is the spectre of a new ‘gender essentialism’. There is always the old argument of ‘nature
versus nurture’.And where as I have
tended to see nurture as the dominant influence, there is the problem of
explaining falling male academic performance.I struggle with this philosophically. Also, I disagree fundamentally
with Education Commentator Kevin Donnelly when it comes to his Ideology, and
with his prescriptions for ‘educational reform’ ; but the figures regarding
boy’s educational performance speak for themselves.This needs to be taken seriously as a social
problem ; as a site of structural inequality.

Finally: what about ‘men’s rights’?Mostly on the Left we would summarily dismiss ‘men’s rights’. After all
– MRAs are all misogynists, right?But
just consider what’s going on here for a second.The proposition that men have rights as men
is also being rendered marginal by this characterisation of an extreme and
hateful social movement.But 30 years
ago people were saying the same kind of thing about feminism.There may be ‘really-existing’ men’s rights
activists who are truly appalling human beings. Who want to ‘turn the clock
back’ – and worse.But what we should
not be doing is invalidating the notion that ‘men have rights as men’ just as
‘women have rights as women’ ; but even more so – human beings have rights
as human beings. We have to be
open to the notion that a ‘men’s rights’ movement is possible which is an ally –
and not the enemy – of a feminism which seeks liberation, and equality in
public life, sport, the labour market, the home, popular culture and so on.A men’s rights movement is possible – which seeks mutual liberation
and mutual respect.But individuals in such
a movement may have occasional disagreements or reservations with specific
expressions of feminism.(Such
as I have raised here) That does not deserve to be lumped in the same basket
with the proponents of gender hate and revenge – as exemplified by the MRAs we
always hear about.And people of a
broadly sympathetic kind of thinking (towards feminism), but potentially with specific
differences, do not deserve to be vilified.

I hope readers will take the concerns I raise here seriously.As a person sympathetic towards Feminism ;
but who has some differences with some of its specific expressions.It is well for women to continue making
gains: in popular culture, public life, work, sport and in the home.But let’s be guided by principles of mutual
consideration and respect as this transition continues.

THE RED FLAG IS STILL FLYING HERE

INTERESTED IN SPONSORING THIS PAGE?

This blog and several other websites are maintained by Tristan Ewins for nothing in return. But I would greatly appreciate any progressive sponsors. This page and others I maintain attract many thousands of visitors every year. Some posts even attract over 1000 readers on their own. So in return for a significant donation your Advertisement or Message could appear here and at my other pages! That is: assuming you support the blog and its message, as well as other sites where your message could appear. Contact me at the following email if you are interested:tristane@bigpond.net.au

Total Pageviews

About Me

Tristan's areas of expertise include Australian and world politics, social theory, education, history, and computer gaming for PC. He considers himself a liberal, and also a socialist, but has also referred to himself as a left social democrat. He says such - conscious that there was once a time when 'social democracy' and 'socialism' were synonymous. Furthermore, Tristan is a long-time member of the Australian Labor Party - specifically its Socialist Left wing. He is also involved in the Australian Fabian Society. Tristan has written for many publications - including a stint freelancing for 'The Canberra Times': the daily broadsheet of the Australian Capital. Tristan's Personal Homepage is here: http://sites.google.com/site/tristanewinsfreelancewriter